The Influence of Climate Change Efficacy Messages and Efficacy Beliefs on Intended Political Participation

...political engagement on climate change by members of the public remains somewhat rare, with only about 10% of the U.S. public having contacted government officials to ask for action to be taken on the issue....In light of this, communication scholars have paid increasing attention to how climate change is covered in the media and how different types of climate messages may influence public perceptions and engagement on the issue."

This study examines one element that influences whether or not members of the public engage in political action around issues such as climate change: their sense of efficacy. Efficacy refers to individuals' perception that a problem is addressable and that they are able to engage in the relevant action needed to address the problem. The authors suggest that, although perceived efficacy has been identified as an important variable in influencing political action in general and environmental activism specifically, scant research has investigated how efficacy information as a variable in media messages may influence perceptions of efficacy and political action in the context of climate change. Here, they intend to address this research gap.

Using an online survey experiment with a national (United States - US) sample, this study examined how changing the type and valence of efficacy information in news stories discussing global climate change may impact intended political participation through the mediators of perceived internal, external, and response efficacy. Some of the work in understanding how efficacy is related to behaviour was developed through Bandura's self-efficacy theory. On this theory, self-efficacy refers to the belief that one can engage in a behaviour, and outcome expectancy refers to the perceived likely outcome of engaging in a behaviour. According to Bandura's theory, when an individual perceives they have the ability to engage in a behaviour and believes that the behaviour is likely to result in an outcome they desire, that person is more likely to engage in the behaviour. This approach to understanding efficacy and behaviour strongly influenced subsequent behavioural models, including the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM), which serves, in part, as the basis for the present study. In the political domain, political science scholars have differentiated between two different types of efficacy: internal efficacy, which refers to one's personal sense that they can understand politics and act effectively in the political realm, and external efficacy, which reflects individuals' beliefs about the government's responsiveness to citizen demands.

To clarify, internal efficacy, which is very similar to the concept of self-efficacy in the EPPM, captures the ease with which individuals are able to take political action. Indicators of internal efficacy include whether an individual feels they are knowledgeable enough about politics or a political issue and have the ability to take political action such as writing a letter to an elected official. However, even when an individual feels they are able to take action such as writing a letter, a critical factor in whether they choose to do so is whether they believe that politicians themselves will actually respond to public engagement and input. This second factor is referred to as external efficacy. Finally, even if an individual believes that politicians will respond to calls for action, an additional factor is whether the political action that does occur will successfully address the issue. This final factor is referred to as response efficacy, which captures whether proposed policy action to address issues such as climate change will actually be effective in doing so.

A sample of 1,426 participants took part in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of seven experimental conditions: either a no-message control condition or one of six treatment conditions. The number of participants in each condition ranged from 200 to 208 individuals. All of the treatment conditions consisted of an exposure to a constructed news story that was indicated to be from the Associated Press. The news story discussed the likely impacts of climate change, including heat waves, floods, droughts, extreme weather, and effects on human health in the US. The treatment conditions varied according to the type of efficacy information emphasised in the news story (internal, external, or response) and the valence of this information (positive vs. negative). The six treatment conditions were 1) positive internal efficacy, 2) negative internal efficacy, 3) positive external efficacy, 4) negative external efficacy, 5) positive response efficacy, and 6) negative response efficacy. In order to manipulate efficacy information, the researchers varied the headline of the news articles and the second paragraph of the three-paragraph news article, which described policy actions that may be taken to respond to climate change.

Overall, the results revealed that after a single exposure to the news story, stories including positive internal efficacy content increased perceived internal efficacy, while stories including negative external efficacy content lowered perceived external efficacy. There were limited impacts of other types of efficacy content on perceived efficacy. Perceived internal, external, and response efficacy all offered unique, positive associations with intentions to engage in climate change-related political participation.

The results suggest that news stories including positive internal efficacy information in particular have the potential to increase public engagement around climate change. "This is important information for strategic communicators working in the area of climate change. For example, the results of this study strongly suggest that communication efforts may benefit not only by focusing on the possible effects of different policy responses to climate change, but also by describing specific steps that interested members of the public may take in the political sphere. The results also can help journalists better understand the implications of how they choose to cover climate change for public opinion and behavior. We note again that in our previous work [see citations in the document], we found that when journalists report on the efficacy of actions to address climate change, the stories are heavily weighted towards discussing whether or not these actions will be successful in mitigating climate change (response efficacy) and include very limited information on the ability of individuals to take specific actions (internal efficacy). The present study suggests that media coverage that weights the three types of efficacy more evenly, and specifically includes positive information about internal efficacy, may be more likely to promote public engagement on the issue. While we recognize that many journalists see the purpose of the news media as primarily to inform, rather than persuade, there are multiple ways that a journalist may cover a story in a normatively acceptable manner, and it is important to understand how these choices may 'nudge'...individuals to become more or less engaged on important sociopolitical issues such as global climate change. Thus, the findings of the present study offer journalists information on how the distribution of different types of efficacy in their reporting may influence and engage their audiences."